Friday, June 14, 2013

This month there are two gun shows that KC3 will be attending.The first is the Kenny Woods show being held at Heritage Hall/Rupp Arena in Lexington this Saturday and Sunday, June 15 and 16. The doors open at 9 AM and we'll be there to answer your questions and get your ideas for future initiatives.The second is June 22 and 23, National Gun Day at the Kentucky Fairgrounds and Exposition Center in Louisville. Once again, the doors open at 9 AM both Saturday and Sunday.Come out and join us. Maybe you'll find that gun or the ammunition and accessories that you know you can't live without, and rub the noses of the anti-gunners in the gun culture while you're at it!

Thursday, June 6, 2013

The video of the Louisville Forum debate about "gun violence" in Februaryin which KC3 was represented by board member and co-founder Charles Riggs against anti-gun liberal Rep. John Yarmuth is now online, courtesy of friend to liberty Bruce Layne.You can find part 1, and the link to part 2, on this YouTube page by clicking here.

Sunday, April 28, 2013

The KC3 annual meeting's date has not yet been set, but notification will be forthcoming in plenty of time per our bylaws.

But before then we need to point out that we could use some more people to serve on the board of directors. We need people to help us devise new ideas, to help out at gun shows and to expand our presence into more of the state.
We'd love to work all of the gun shows in the state but with so few board members on hand now that's not possible. Having more directors, especially from other regions, would facilitate that.
We are also looking into a plan to enlist regional membership recruiters who would be responsible for going to gun stores and related venues in their areas to tell them about KC3 and encourage gun owners and CCDW permit holders to join us.
If you're interested in serving, have ideas on how we can expand and grow our membership or would like to volunteer in any way or offer any services to KC3 please get in touch via the comments section here on the blog. Thanks!

In February, KC3 co-founder and current president Charles Riggs debated gun control against Rep. John Yarmuth at the Louisville Forum Annual Dinner.

A video of that exchange will soon be online on YouTube so that you can see what was said and how it went. Don't expect any dynamic new arguments from Yarmuth and don't expect that the anti-gun members of the audience experienced any sudden conversion to our point of view in the process.
But many have asked about how the debate went and soon you'll have a chance to see for yourself.

The quarterly newsletter that KC3 has published for years is going away this spring.

The economics of publishing a newsletter have dictated that it's no longer cost-effective to put one out each quarter. The news is often dated by the time it arrives, and it's expensive to print and distribute it. While a few of our members still don't use the internet that much, the vast majority of them are using their computers to keep up with the world every day, often many times a day.
With the advent of the new web site KC3 will have the ability to publish an online newsletter with better graphics, better features and modern functionality including links to other sites in real time. We'll be able to connect our members and readers to other groups that share our interests and goals.
We'll also be able to deliver more value to our advertisers, which we anticipate will attract many more of them and in the process provide better service to the visitors to our page. You'll know more about products that could enhance your safety, and they'll be reaching a group that's focused on what they can provide.
We'll miss the hands-on nature of the newsletter - it's kinda funky, like the old church mimeograph pages of yore - but in its place we'll be delivering more efficient service and better value. More bang for your buck - what gun owner doesn't want that?

If you've looked for the KC3 web site in the last few days, you might have noticed that it's not there. There's a reason for that.
A complete re-design of the KC3 web page has been in the works for over two years but progress has been slow.Several factors have led to delays in the web site changes. There are only so many hours in the days of everyone's lives, and taking the time to sort out the site's content was a slog for those who took on that task.
The biggest problem was finding an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that would devise a comprehensive re-design of the site that included the layout, the graphics and the features that were needed in an up to date site.
While the graphics that KC3 has used for the last several years, based on the outstanding photography of gun rights activist Oleg Volk, have drawn positive comments from many, the graphical style of the page was outdated and stale. Navigation of the page was cumbersome and there were dozens of pages of material that had become outdated. Malware had infected many pages due to outdated links, requiring a complete security overhaul. The easiest thing to do was to shut down the site.
But now KC3 has contracted with the crew at Modern Web Studios to take over hosting duties. In addition, they'll be designing a completely new look for the page.
The new site will have several features that we've needed for a long time. These will include the ability to take applications for new members and renewals without having to print an application and sending it in via the mail. It will have a function that will allow donations, and in time will expand to have an online store where you'll be able to buy Traveller's Guides and other merchandise.
Two features will be especially important. The first of those will be the online real-time blog that will give us the ability to post news items and links that members can use to stay current on topics relating to our mission. The second will be the sign-up link for our email broadcasts and alerts. With this feature, subscribers will get email notifications when an issue becomes urgent, or receive updates on legislation and political developments. When a change in a law or a bill needs your attention, you'll get an email message in time to take action and help KC3 protect and expand our self-defense rights.
There'll be more, of course, but for now we wanted you to know that at long last the changes that we've talked about are close to being realized.
And once the web page is up and running, watch out! There's more in store for you and KC3 in 2013.

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

I'll be teaching a CCDW class in Frankfort on Saturday, March 23rd, and teachers can attend FREE.If you know a teacher who'd like to take their CCDW permit class FREE, with the cost of the class paid for by KC3, have them contact me at (502) 320-9807 as soon as possible.The class is open to anyone who wants to attend at the usual cost of $75, but teachers will be certified at NO CHARGE as part of KC3's program to train and qualify more teachers in Kentucky, which will enhance the safety of our children - Charles Riggs, KC3 co-founder

Monday, March 4, 2013

This week KC3 filed suit against six Kentucky cities - Louisville, Ft. Thomas, Warsaw, Winchester, Ft. Mitchell - and Woodford county for violating KRS 65.870 by posting illegal signage or having illegal ordinances in place. They had six months to get their houses in order, now they're going to have to pay for their flouting of our laws!

KRS 65.879 allows individuals or groups with standing to sue government entities that violate the law, and recover expenses and attourney fees.
If you live in Louisville, Ft. Thomas, Warsay, Winchester, Ft. Mitchell, and Woodford County, it might be a good time to ask your elected officials why they've ignored the law, and why your tax dollars are going to have to be spent in this manner. Maybe you could also take advantage of the law and swear out a complaint of official misconduct against these elected officials. Hmmm. Just a thought...

Friday, March 1, 2013

In New York, the state Supreme Court warned that it will issue an injunction against the recently passed SAFE Act, which limits magazine capacity and bans semiautomatic rifles, if the state fails to prove that the law is compliant with the Second Amendment. Of course it isn't, so this could get interesting. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that firearms "in common usage" may not be restricted nor may entire classes of firearms. New York did both with its seven-round magazine limit and outright ban of semi-auto rifles -- both AR-15s and standard-capacity mags holding more than seven rounds are clearly in common usage. And good luck finding a seven-round magazine. Gun manufacturers indicate they won't produce special New York-style magazines. (from PatriotPost.US)

With Senate Judiciary Committee meeting this week, it's likely that new gun control bills will be drafted very quickly. There are in essence two parts to the bills: the part that deals with the “assault weapon ban” and the part that deals with “universal background checks.” The first one faces long odds of passage, but the second might well pass.Democrats will undoubtedly push for an assault weapons ban. The ban has become a central tenant of the Democratic party, with Obama's calls "to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets" and even Michelle Obama claiming crimes are being committed with “automatic weapons.” Senator Dianne Feinstein is pushing hard to reinstitute the earlier assault weapon ban, which she had originally enacted in 1994.Proponents of an "Assault Weapons Ban" often argue their point by posing the question: "Why do people need a semiautomatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?"From 1994 to 2004, we banned both so-called assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. But the ban simply did not do any good. They obviously imply that the weapon must be a military weapon not designed for hunting. But they are simply plain mistaken. It has just been made to look like a military weapon. The semiautomatic Bushmaster functions identically to a small game hunting rifle. Indeed, the caliber of bullet it fires is too small to be used legally to hunt deer in most states.The AR-15 is a semi-automatic gun, not a machine gun, like those used in the military. One pull of the trigger releases one bullet. With a machine gun (or automatic), one pull of the trigger releases many bullets.Generally, people need semi-automatic guns for self-defense. As Vice President Joe Biden’s recent gaffe about recommending people fire two warning shots from a double-barreled 12-gauge shotgun so amply illustrates. The recoil from such a shotgun may be too much for a smaller person. I know of seven cases during just this past December where at least ten shots were fired defensively. They involved instances where 2, 3, or even 4 criminals had broken into people’s homes.The assault weapon ban also faces one very big obstacle. We have been there, done that. From 1994 to 2004, we banned both so-called assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 bullets. The ban was very similar to what is proposed now, with guns banned because they looked like military weapons or had rather arbitrary, cosmetic criteria.But the ban simply did not do any good. Despite plenty of studies by criminologists and economists, none of the academic criminologists or economists who have studied this have found any benefits from the law. One of the studies was even funded by the Clinton administration. Yet, this study too concluded: "the evidence is not strong enough for us to conclude that there was any meaningful effect (i.e., that the effect was different from zero)." Seven years later, in 2004, the authors of that report (Chris Koper and Jeff Roth) published a follow-up study for the National Institute of Justice together with a fellow criminologist (Dan Woods). Yet again, they could not discern any benefit: "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."The old ban banned semi-automatic guns purely based on their looks or whether they contained two or more features such as bayonet mount, folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher fittings. The new rules list 157 banned guns by name because of their looks and would ban other guns if they have just one of those features.Yet, these minor differences have already been tried by states such as California and Connecticut, and, again, neither criminologists nor economists have found any benefits from these state level laws either.What is so maddening here is that the proposals are trying to split semi-automatics into two groups: the “bad” ones and the “good” ones, but there is no sensible criteria used to distinguish the two. While Democrats know that there is absolutely no chance of passing a law that will ban all semi-automatics, they want to appear as if they are “doing something” by trying to ban some of them.As for the second part of gun control measures, expanded background checks, the likelihood of passage is stronger, but the case for expanded checks is weak. Again, research by others as well as my own keeps failing to find that background checks lower crime rates.Possibly that isn’t really too surprising. Background checks are just one way of stopping criminals from getting guns and even more extreme methods have failed. Even when guns were banned in Washington and Chicago or even in island nations such as the UK, Ireland and Jamaica, criminals still got guns and murder rates rose after the bans.To make their case in favor of expanded background checks, impressive numbers have been repeated over and over again. President Obama claims “40% of guns are purchased without a background check” and that background checks have “blocked 1.7 million prohibited individuals from buying a gun.”Both claims are simply false.The 40% number is actually 36%, and refers to transfers, not sales. It would only be accurate if family inheritances and gifts were reclassified as "purchases." The 36% number was based on a small survey from 1991 to 1994, most of which came before the Brady Act took effect on Feb. 28 1994, with the act introducing the requirement that all federally-licensed dealers perform checks.Similarly, the supposedly 1.7 million prohibited individuals prevented from buying a gun make no sense whatsoever. What we have is 1.7 million “initial denials.” Again, it is a big difference.Truth is, these government databases are rife with flaws. Remember the five times that the late Sen. Ted Kennedy missed flights because his name was on the anti-terror “no fly” list? By Obama’s method of counting, that means the “no fly” list stopped five flights by terrorists.

Hardly.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after preliminary reviews. Further review found that at least a fifth of the other 6 percent were also wrongly stopped from buying guns.

The current flaws in the background-check system may be an inconvenience for many, but for some it means dangerous delays. Some people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-spouse or companion will find themselves defenseless.Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of these laws can cost lives. Talking about only the benefits of more laws and not their costs isn’t going to make anyone safer.John R. Lott, Jr., writes frequently for FoxNews.com. An economist and former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, he is also a leading expert on guns. He is the author of several books, including "More Guns, Less Crime." His latest book is "At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge? (Regnery Publishing 2013)." Follow him on Twitter@johnrlottjr.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/28/truth-about-assault-weapons-bans-and-background-checks/#ixzz2MINwecVV

Monday, February 25, 2013

NEWS RELEASESecond Amendment Foundation12500 NE Tenth Place • Bellevue, WA 98005(425) 454-7012 • FAX (425) 451-3959 • www.saf.org7TH CIRCUIT LETS POSNER RULING STAND; HUGE WIN FOR CCW, SAYS SAF For Immediate Release: 2/22/2013BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today won a significant victory for concealed carry when the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals let stand a December ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that forces Illinois to adopt a concealed carry law, thus affirming that the right to bear arms exists outside the home.The ruling came in Moore v. Madigan, a case filed by SAF. The December opinion that now stands was written by Judge Richard Posner, who gave the Illinois legislature 180 days to “craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.” That clock is ticking, noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.“Illinois lawmakers need to create some kind of licensing system or face the prospect of not having any regulations at all when Judge Posner’s deadline arrives,” Gottlieb said. “They need to act. They can no longer run and hide from this mandate.”“We were delighted with Judge Posner’s ruling in December,” he continued, “and today’s decision by the entire circuit to allow his ruling to stand is a major victory, and not just for gun owners in Illinois. Judge Posner’s ruling affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms, itself, extends beyond the boundary of one’s front door.”In December, Judge Posner wrote, “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”Judge Posner subsequently added, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.”“It is now up to the legislature,” Gottlieb said, “to craft a statute that recognizes the right of ordinary citizens to carry outside the home, without a sea of red tape or a requirement to prove any kind of need beyond the cause of personal protection.”The ruling also affects a similar case filed by the National Rifle Association known as Shepard v. Madigan.The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

There are still tickets available for the Louisville Forum Annual Dinner where KC3 co-founder and board member Charles Riggs will be debating the topic of Gun Violence against Rep. John Yarmuth on Thursday Feb. 21st - for more information and to purchase tickets go to their web page at -http://www.louisvilleforum.org/events.aspxIt'd be great to have a whole room full of Second Amendment supporters to cheer on our side so make plans to attend, and get your tickets before Feb. 18th.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Former Los Angeles police officer Chris Dorner allegedly went on a shooting rampage this week, murdering one officer and two civilians, as well as wounding two more officers. As I post this, he is still at large. Dorner, also a Navy veteran, was fired from the department in 2009 for making false statements, and now claims he is seeking to punish corruption within the LAPD. What is often missing from media coverage, however, is the part of his manifesto announcing that he's pro-Obama, pro-Hillary for 2016, pro-gun control, pro-"assault weapons" ban and anti-NRA.Don’t believe it? Read it for yourself HERE.Why isn't this in the news? The bias of the major news organizations is the point here. Give us the facts, and let us make up our own minds.gbw

Apparently we get our own version of Dianne Feinstein's "commonsense" gun legislation here in the Commonwealth!! Aren't we lucky? Apparently some of our legislators still think that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting.

Read about it here (NRA/ILA), and here (Lexington Herald-Leader), and here (Louisville Courier-Journal).

You can read all the gun related bills introduced so far in the Ky. Legislature on this page.

Folks, I've talked to a lot of you at gun shows, and I don't know how many times I've heard, "It can't happen in Kentucky." Well, here it is. It's time to call/mail/email your State Senators and Representatives, and get this bill beat into the ground. Links to their contact info can be found in the right column of the blog.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

If you live in Kentucky's 3rd Congressional District, Congressman John Yarmuth would like your take on the President's proposed measures to reduce "gun violence". Go to this webpage to tell him what you think. There is a place to leave your ideas about what might work. Keep it civil. Here's what I suggested.

1. Stop playing politics with this and ENFORCE CURRENT LAWS AND PROSECUTE VIOLENT OFFENDERS. Precious little of that going on in the Federal courts.

2. Incarcerate violent offenders for certain, long-term sentences. Recidivism is too high in this group to leave them on the streets.

3. Increase the penalties for all violent offenders.

4. Leave the 99.999% of legal, law-abiding gun owners alone and go after criminals. And if the mentally ill are a problem, get them in front of a judge so they can be adjudicated mentally ill and therefore ineligible for a legal gun purchase.

5. Realize that none of the proposed items, even those with which I agree, make anyone safe, or even arguably safer. The heart of man is desperately wicked. No one can understand it. As long as we participate in society, we are at the mercy of the sociopath, the psychotic, and the evil persons around us.

KC3 has received inquiries from some schools asking what needs to be done to allow teachers and administrators to carry under current Kentucky law. If you are in a position to implement a concealed carry policy at your school, we strongly recommend you seek advice from an attorney.

The applicable Kentucky statute is KRS 527.070, particularly section 3f. KC3 supports arming teachers and school administrators. The only way to stop a bad person with a gun is a good guy/gal with a gun. As history has shown us, designating an area as a "gun-free zone" only paints targets on the backs of everyone who finds themselves in one.KC3 is represented by Friend and Hunt LLC. They successfully defended Mitchell v. UK, a significant win for gun-owners' rights in Kentucky's Supreme Court, and are definitely pro-gun owner, pro-Second Amendment folks. Friend and Hunt contact information is below.www.friendandhunt.com

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The second free CCDW class for teachers will be held in Frankfort on Saturday, Feb. 16th.
The first class was a success, with five teachers attending and a total of 11 students. Not a huge class, but a pretty good turnout for such short notice.
If you're a teacher who wants to take the class FREE, or make a donation of $25 and pay for your own or another teacher's class, contact Charles Riggs at (502) 320-9807 to get more information and reserve your spot.
We anticipate that there will be classes in other areas of the state as more instructors step up to volunteer their services. Steve Sprowls in Elizabethtown has already indicated that he'll be offering CCDW for teachers, so watch for advertisements of those in that area.
Remember that for every $25 donation dedicated to the program KC3 and its affiliated instructors will certify a teacher at NO cost to them for their CCDW permit. If you want to support the program, or make a donation for a specific teacher get in touch with us!

Monday, January 28, 2013

The other side is fond of pulling out a letter from former presidents in favor of the 1994 gun ban legislation. They are fond of reminding us that even President Reagan supported the now discredited, unsuccessful, and useless cosmetic gun ban. I can't speak to the former President's state of mind in 1994. I can tell you what he said when he was President, and fully in control of his faculties.

"Mightn't it be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons and put the word out to the underworld that it is no longer totally safe to rob and murder? ... Criminals are not dissuaded by soft words, soft judges or easy laws. They are dissuaded by fear and they are prevented from repeating their crimes by death or by incarceration. In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea. We are never going to prevent murder; we are never going to eliminate crime; we are never going to end violent action by the criminals and the crazies -- with or without guns." -Ronald Reagan

The following is reposted from The Munchkin Wrangler, with kind permission from the author, Marko Kloos. Marko is also the author of The Gun is Civilization, often attributed to some fictitious army dude. It will help you to know that while we see Marko is being facetious and/or satirical, many on the other side will read it and say, "Hmmm. We need to do something about that." Because that's the mindset over there.

Forty thousand people die on American highways every year. Do we just shrug that number off as the price of freedom?

Why is it perfectly legal to buy a 500HP Corvette capable of 180MPH top speeds in a country where no state has a legal speed limit higher than 75 or 80MPH? And you can buy those irresponsible death machines without a license, or any proof of mental or physical competence to handle a high-performance sports car. Give me a good reason why we shouldn’t ban those things?

We can start with sensible car control and ban cars with “racing style” features first. If it has any two of the features listed below, it’s a racing-style car and has no place on civilized streets:

•Front or rear spoilers (whether add-on or molded into the bodywork)
•Hood scoop
•Decals
•Five-point harness (no reason for those unless you intend to wreck at high speeds)
•Tailpipes with a diameter of larger than <$ARBITRARY_NUMBER>
•Cockpit tachometers
•Manual gearboxes and stick shifters (to include those loophole “Tiptronic” and similar semi-manual shift features of automatic transmissions)
•Bucket seats
•“Race car style” engine start buttons that let you turn on the vehicle without manually turning a key
•Road clearance of less than twelve inches
•Alloy rims mounting tires wider than P185/75R14

Can we all get behind this, folks? After all, the Constitution doesn’t recognize a right to drive, and if it did, it would refer to horse buggies at best, not 200MPH death machines that can catapult the driver from 0 to 60 in four seconds.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

After another frustrating attempt at a civil discussion with one who does not hold my views on the "gun violence" issue, I only have one thing to say. Would y'all please at least apply internally consistent logic to your worldview? My head is spinning with the contradictions I heard in a 10 minute conversation. I don't expect your comments to make much sense in my world, but is it too much to ask they at least make sense in yours?Thank you.GBW

Friday, January 25, 2013

I've decided to purchase some of these to keep on hand. I want to see them (and you know who I'm talking about) squirm when I tell them to put their superior moral position on their front and back door. I'm sure they would tell me it's foolish to put one of these on their home. And I'd have to agree. Research has shown that almost all violent crime offenders choose victims who are least likely to own a gun to defend themselves. And then I'd watch them squirm some more trying to answer why they want (and deep down you know it's true) to effectively put one of these on every home in America. Stickers are available at PatriotPost.US along with a host of other Second Amendment items.

Monday, January 21, 2013

This editorial by KC3 co-founder Charles Riggs appeared in the Frankfort State Journal on Sunday, January 20thThe questions that now dominate our political dialogue, whether to protect our children with armed guards in schools and what to do to protect ourselves from maniacs wielding guns, have answers that are simpler than most people realize. But it will be hard to bring them to bear not because gun owners won’t give up their guns, not because of their fear of confiscation, but because of the delusions of the antigun factions in the debate.

For proof of that, we have only to look to Israel. That nation is surrounded by people who hate them, who make daily calls for their destruction and who at one time were in the habit of invading Israeli schools and murdering their children. The Israelis responded by training and arming their teachers and principals. Now those assaults are a thing of the past. The Israelis didn’t take time for endless studies while pining for a cure. They took action quickly and decisively, and their solution protects their children every day from terrorists far more bloodthirsty than any school shooter yet seen in this country.So it’s plain that the only thing that stops an armed maniac is an armed citizen or police officer, and more often it’s the citizen who does it. According to statistics compiled by the federal government, armed Americans each year kill three times as many criminals in justified self defense than the police do. And there are more of us, at the scene of the crime when personal violence is attempted by thugs.In this country, when murderers have been confronted by armed citizens they have folded or surrendered, or committed suicide, foiled in their homicidal designs. This was the case at the high school in Pearl, Mississippi and in the mall in Oregon. Armed law students ended a killing spree in West Virginia. The list goes on and on. Yet the gun-banners have done their best to ignore this history or to pooh-pooh it and refuse to admit it. But ignoring reality doesn’t make it disappear, much to their dismay, and they’ve lost control of the media that once parroted only their phobic propaganda.There is a word that describes these superstitious types. It is “hoplophobe”, derived from the Greek “hoplos” for tool and “phobia” for fear. They fear inanimate objects when they should fear evil, the dark place in the soul of a murderer. Banning guns is far easier for them than coming to terms with the fact that evil will seek them out, and the only thing that stops it is the resolve of a man or woman who possesses the tools, the arms, to confront it.The hoplophobes have done their best to deprive our children of education about guns because of this fear. The Left wants our kids to learn about gay marriage, premarital sex, drugs and a range of other topics, but not guns, never guns. And why is that? If knowing about drugs is supposed to inoculate kids against their ravages, why isn’t gun safety education equally valid?It’s because they’re not interested in giving kids objective information about guns, but in demonizing them. Their aim is not to empower but to horrify with the specter of guns that will be used to slaughter them. The fact that more children will die in car accidents and drowning and other daily events of life in any given year than in school shootings is something they ignore or suppress because it doesn’t fit their narrative or bolster their case against guns.For the anti-gunners to acknowledge that guns in righteous hands are a solution, the proven solution, requires them to abandon their core beliefs.Lawful gun owners feel obligated to teach children responsibility and safety with firearms. Not so long ago kids brought guns to school in their pickup trucks, and went hunting after school. Boys kept shotguns in their lockers and shot on school teams. So when did school shootings begin to plague our nation? They burgeoned when teachers began to rail against guns, and espouse “zero tolerance”. Thus the seeds for slaughter were sown.It’s not responsible gun owners who commit these atrocities. It’s the deranged and psychotic. For these isolated lunatics the gun is a sign of power. Their internal dialog says “They can mock me, but this gun gives me power over them. I can destroy the jocks and the brains and the girls who’ve humiliated me, made me miserable. My gun gives me the power of judgment over their lives, gives me what my own failings will not.” and why do they believe this? Because guns have been made into mythic objects, totems of power by the people who fear them.The very NRA that the Left so loves to malign has been the source of the majority of gun safety training in this country for decades, yet when Mr. Obama unveiled his orders for more gun education he made no mention of the NRA, nor of the successful programs that gun owners have been using for so long.It’s apparent that his goal is not to solve the problem in cooperation with we who have brought gun safety to the point that gun accidents are at an all-time low in the United States despite an all-time high number of guns in private hands. His purpose is to continue a pogrom that has failed, and cost the lives of too many of our people, not just in schools but in our cities and streets.It is the teachings of the hoplophobes that are responsible for this mythos, this fascination with guns. The anti-gunners who’ve taken reasonableness out of the discussion, who’ve dumbed down our children about firearms are the ones who’ve created these monsters, and thus they are incapable of solving the problem.Prohibition didn’t end drinking. Banning guns won’t stop mayhem. We know what works. Fighting back, refusing to be victims, is the only course of action that will stop evil.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Come join your fellow gun-owning, Second Amendment practicing Kentuckians at the State Capitol Building in Frankfort this Saturday.

WHAT: "Guns Across America" is a peaceful positive rally against ANY, AND ALL future gun control legislation. This is our chance to reach out to our elected officials, and tell them NO NEW GUN LAWS! "Guns Across America" is also an opportunity for us to show the the public that gun owners come from all walks of life and that we are just regular people concerned about our 2nd Amendment rights.

WHERE: 700 Capitol Avenue Loop Frankfort, KY 40601

WHEN: January 19, 2013 @ 12:00 noon

It even looks as if the weather is going to cooperate. The organizer of this event has some specific requests for those who attend. For that information, and more as it is available, follow this link.gbw

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

The first free CCDW class for teachers, sponsored by KC3 and our donors, will be held this Saturday January 22nd in Frankfort at the Capital Plaza Hotel beginning at 8:30 AM.
If you know a teacher who would like to participate have them contact the instructor, KC3 director Charles Riggs, at (502) 320-9807 as soon as possible. There are still seats available for both teachers and others who would like to attend. Cost for non-teachers is $65. Spread the word while there's still time for this one, and stay tuned for more dates to come.

This is the web page of the group that's staging the debate on gun control that KC3 director Charles Riggs has been asked to participate in next week in Louisville, Kentucky on Tuesday, Jan. 22d.
The audience will select who won the debate by determining who did the best job of adhering to the rules and carried his points. We would LOVE to have as many of you as possible who share our views on the Second Amendment and our right to self defense come out and show your support. You have to buy tickets to attend, and it's limited to 100 people so it'd be good to buy in advance if you can. The ticket money will be donated to the charity of the winner's choice, which in Charles' case will be the Franklin County Ky. Humane Society.
If you can make it, please do, and share this with everyone you know! We'd appreciate your support.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

On Mandy Connell's show on WHAS 840 AM on Thursday, Jan. 10th, director Charles Riggs announced our new plan to provide CCDW training to schoolteachers.
For every $25 donation that we receive to cover the basic fee to the state treasurer, KC3 affiliated instructors will certify a teacher for the CCDW class. The instructors will donate their time and costs for the remaining $50 of the $75 that the class usually costs.
KC3 affiliate Harmony Hollow Training was the first to offer this program, and several others will be announced in the next few days. You can follow this both here at the blog and on our Facebook page.
The first class to be held in response to donations received at the Kenny Woods gun show in Lexington Jan. 5th and 6th will be in Frankfort on Jan. 19th. Those teachers who signed up for the class at that time will be notified this week.
KC3 believes that the more teachers who have their CCDW permits the safer the environment for us all. Too many myths persist about concealed carry, and too many teachers and others have been misled about the law and the effectiveness of armed self-defense. For instance, many don't know that it's already perfectly legal to have a gun in their locked car in the parking lot of the school where they work!
While it still isn't yet possible for teachers to carry a firearm into school with them, we have to remember that a potential massacre was averted at Pearl, Mississippi when a high school principal retrieved his pistol from his truck in the parking lot, and forced a student who had shot up that school before he could leave and go to another school to shoot yet more undefended students. So even if they can't carry in the classroom, teachers not only can have a gun in their car for such events but they'll be familiar with the law and the use of deadly force from having taken the class.
If you'd like to donate to this effort, send your check or money order to - KC3, PO Box 1269, Frankfort, Ky. 40602 and note that you're contributing to the CCDW for Teachers program. If you have a particular person for whom you'd like to make the donation be sure to include their name and contact telephone number so that we can call them and notify them when classes are being held.
As we know, armed good guys are the only persons who can stop armed bad guys. Help us make a start on improving safety in schools for our children by supporting this program!

Monday, January 7, 2013

Board Member Charles Riggs will be on 590 WVLK with Sue Wylie at 10AM.
Board Members Joey Burke and Charles Riggs will be on 970 WGTK with Joe Elliot at 1PM
Listen in if you can. Both stations stream on the Internet and on radio apps.

Sunday, January 6, 2013

KC3 has announced a new program that will train teachers for their CCDW permit at no charge to them.
On Saturday we announced at the Lexington gun show that for every $25 donation we receive that KC3 would train a teacher for their concealed carry permit. The donation will pay most of the fee that goes to the state, and our instructors will donate the remainder of the cost of instruction and the fee.
We already have 15 teachers signed up to take the class, and we anticipate adding many more in the days to come. If you know a teacher who would like to get their CCDW permit, or are a teacher yourself, contact us by sending a letter with your name and telephone number to -

Kentucky Concealed Carry CoalitionPO Box 1269

Frankfort, Ky. 40602

The good people at Harmony Hollow firearms training gave us the idea, and if you live in their area you can contact them for the same training deal via their web site -

KC3 board member Charles Riggs was interviewed by the Lexington Herald Leader at the Kenny Woods gun show in Lexington on Saturday, and a few of his comments are quoted in this story on Sunday. As usual, only a fraction of the material that the reporter was given was used, but we're used to that. Kenny's comments are especially clear and to the point, makes the article worth reading.

Friday, June 1, 2012

In View from the Porch, Tam asks a question we should strongly consider. Speaking of self-defense scenarios and Zombie ammo, Tam says,

"Nobody's hypothetical scenario ever seems to include getting beat down by a moody, unarmed teenager who reacts belligerently to "Hey, do you live around here?" In a case like that, do you really want to be standing over a cooling corpse with a gun full ofjoke bullets?"

Because, you know, your average prosecutor is such a fun guy with a great sense of humor. I can just see him sharing the joke with the jury...Here's the whole post.gbw

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

This year's annual get-together and KC3 business meeting will be in a new location, one selected for its proximity to our members in Western Kentucky and to celebrate a new and most excellent shooting facility, the American Institute of Marksmanship - you can see a full listing of information about them and their courses on their web site at -http://www.aimperfect.com/The annual meeting this year will be a lean, no frills event in an effort to save money and allow our members to spend more time exploring the AIM facility. Food will not be served, but there will be food available for purchase on the premises that day.AIM operations manager Eric Dean has announced that anyone signing up for a KC3 membership on that day will get a free range pass, and that persons who show up for the pre-meeting meet-and-greet with the board of directors will get one as well.The meeting will convene on Saturday, June 9th at 2 PM Central Time in the main lodge at the AIM facility at 1711 Herbert Turner Road just outside of Cave City, Kentucky. Be sure to note that this is CENTRAL time, which is one hour behind the eastern portions of the state. The meet-and-greet will begin at 11 AM Central.The annual election of members for the board of directors will be conducted so if you have an interest in serving on the board, or wish to nominate someone for a position be sure to attend and participate.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

On Monday morning, April 30, Michael Mitchell and KC3 co-founder Charles Riggs will be on Sue Wiley's radio program at 10 AM on WVLK 590 AM in Lexington, Ky. Michael is the young man who won his lawsuit against the University of Ky after he was wrongfully terminated for having a gun in his car. He was represented by KC3's attorney, Christopher Hunt. The judgement against UK by the Ky Supreme Court is a landmark ruling that smacks down the illegal restrictions that all of Ky's colleges have had in place against guns kept legally in vehicles on campus.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

It's a
good day for law-abiding gun owners in Kentucky. Go HERE for the PDF on the Supreme Court website.

RENDERED:
APRIL 26, 2012

TO
BE PUBLISHED

Supreme Court of Kentucky

2010-SC-000762-TG(2010-CA-002119-MR)

MICHAEL
MITCHELL APPELLANT

ON APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURTHONORABLE
PAMELA GOODWINE, JUDGE

1O.
10-CI-00489

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, ET AL. APPELLEES

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE SCHRODER

REVERSING AND REMANDING

Appellant Michael
Mitchell appeals from an order of the Fayette Circuit

Court granting summary judgment in favor of
Appellees, the University of

Kentucky and several of its employees and
entities (collectively "UK"), in a suit

where Mitchell claimed UK terminated his
employment in violation of public

policy. We conclude that Mitchell's discharge was
contrary to a fundamental

and well-defined public policy, i.e., the right
to bear arms as evidenced by the

Kentucky Revised Statutes. We further conclude
that an explicit legislative

statement prohibited Mitchell's discharge, and
that the reason for his discharge

was his exercise of a right conferred by
well-established legislative enactments

Therefore, UK was not entitled to summary
judgment, and we remand for

further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUNDThe
facts in this case are almost entirely undisputed. In 2009, Mitchell

was employed at-will as an anesthesia technician
at the University of Kentucky

Chandler Medical Center, while also attending the
University as a graduate

student.
He had a valid license to carry a concealed deadly weapon pursuantto
KRS 237.110 ("concealed carry license"). On April 22, 2009, several
ofMitchell's
coworkers were under the impression that he had a firearm in hisemployee
locker. The employees reported this to hospital administration.Hospital
administrators contacted the University of Kentucky PoliceDepartment.
When questioned, Mitchell denied having a firearm in his locker.Police
and hospital administrators searched Mitchell's locker with hispermission,
but found no weapons. Mitchell informed officers that he had aconcealed
carry license and admitted that he kept a firearm in his vehicle,which
was parked on University property at Commonwealth Stadium. UKsuspended
Mitchell's employment pending an investigation.Campus
police escorted Mitchell to his car, where he showed them thesemiautomatic
pistol he had stored in his vehicle. In their respective briefs, theparties
agree that Mitchell's weapon was stored in the vehicle's glovecompartment.
However, at an unemployment benefits hearing, Mitchelltestified
that the weapon was stored in his vehicle's armrest. Police confiscatedthe
weapon pending an investigation. On April 29, 2009, the Universityterminated
Mitchell's employment for violation of its policy prohibiting2possession
of a deadly weapon on University property or while conductingUniversity
business.Mitchell
filed suit, alleging termination in violation of public policy,specifically,
his right to bear arms as set forth in the United StatesConstitution,
the Kentucky Constitution, and the Kentucky Revised Statutes.After
interpreting the relevant statutory provisions, the circuit court concludedthat
UK terminated Mitchell pursuant to a policy authorized by law. Thecircuit
court granted summary judgment in favor of UK, finding that there wasno
genuine issue of material fact, and that UK was entitled to judgment as amatter
of law. After filing a notice of appeal, Mitchell filed a motion to transferthe
appeal from the Court of Appeals to this Court. This Court then grantedMitchell's
motion. CR 74.02.II. ANALYSIS"The
standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether thetrial
court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any materialfact
and that the moving p‘arty was entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Coomer v. CSX Transp., Inc., 319
S.W.3d 366, 370 (Ky. 2010) (quoting Scifres v.Kraft,916 S.W.2d 779, 781
(Ky. App. 1996)). "Because summary judgmentinvolves
only legal questions and the existence of any disputed material issuesof
fact, an appellate court need not defer to the trial court's decision and willreview
the issue de novo." Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56
S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky. App.2001)
(footnote omitted).3Mitchell
contends he was wrongfully terminated in violation of publicpolicy.
Ordinarily, an at-will employee may be discharged "for good cause, forno
cause, or for a cause that some might view as morally indefensible.".Firestone Textile Co. Div. v. Meadows, 666
S.W.2d 730, 731 (Ky. 1983) (citingProduction Oil Co. v. Johnson, 313
S.W.2d 411 (Ky. 1958); Scroghan v. KraftcoCorp.,551 S.W.2d 811 (Ky.
App. 1977)). However, there is "a narrow publicpolicy
exception" to the terminable-at-will doctrine, which is subject to thefollowing
limitations:1)
The discharge must be contrary to a fundamentaland
well-defined public policy as evidenced by existinglaw.2)
That policy must be evidenced by a constitutional orstatutory
provision.3)
The decision of whether the public policy assertedmeets
these criteria is a question of law for the courtto
decide, not a question of fact.Grzyb v. Evans, 700
S.W.2d 399, 401 (Ky. 1985). See also Firestone, 666S.W.2d
at 731 (quoting Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 335
N.W.2d 834, 835(Wis.
1983)). In addition, a discharge is actionable as being contrary to publicpolicy
only (1) where there are "explicit legislative statements prohibiting thedischarge,"
(2) where "the alleged reason for the discharge . . . was theemployee's
failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment," or(3)
when "the reason for the discharge was the employee's exercise of arightconferred
by well-established legislative enactment." Hill
v. Kentucky LotteryCorp.,327 S.W.3d 412, 422
(Ky. 2010) (quoting Grzyb,700 S.W.2d at 402).4It
is beyond question that public institutions of higher education have"the
power and authority to govern and control the method and purpose of useof
property owned or occupied by their respective institution[s] . . . ."KRS
164.975(1). In O'Leary v. Commonwealth, our predecessor Courtrecognized
the authority of a public university to control the use of its property.441
S.W.2d 150, 156-57 (Ky. 1969). The narrow question presented in thiscase
is whether any fundamental and well-defined public policy limits theauthority
of a university to control the possession of deadly weapons on itscampus,
and therefore renders Mitchell's termination unlawful as a violation ofpublic
policy."[T]he
long-standing practice of this Court is to refrain from reachingconstitutional
issues when other, non-constitutional grounds can be reliedupon."Baker
v. Fletcher, 204 S.W.3d 589, 597-98 (Ky. 2006) (citing Dawson v.Birenbaum,968 S.W.2d 663 (Ky.
1998)). Therefore, to determine whether UK'stermination
of Mitchell violated public policy, i.e., the right to bear arms, webegin
by examining the relevant sections of the Kentucky Revised Statues.A. Provided Mitchell Stored His Weapon in His
Vehicle's GloveCompartment, His Discharge Was Contrary to KRS
527.020(8)Mitchell
asserts a cause of action for termination in violation of publicpolicy
under KRS 527.020(8). 1 KRS 527.020 is a criminal statute, whichprohibits
the carrying of a concealed weapon. KRS 527.020(1). The statuteI
Subsequent to the events at issue in this case, the General Assembly amendedKRS
527.020(8). See2011 Ky. Acts ch.
64, § 1. Because these revisions are notretroactive,
we address the statute as it was written at the time of Mitchell'stermination.then
proceeds to describe exceptions. KRS 527.020(8) applies generally to allpersons:
2A
firearm or other deadly weapon shall not be deemedconcealed
on or about the person if it is located in aglove
compartment, regularly installed in a motorvehicle
by its manufacturer, regardless of whether saidcompartment
is locked, unlocked, or does \ not have alocking
mechanism. No person or organization,public or private, shall prohibit a person fromkeeping a firearm or ammunition, or both, or
otherdeadly weapon in a glove compartment of a vehiclein accordance with the provisions of thissubsection.Any attempt by a
person or organization,public
or private, to violate the provisions of thissubsection
may be the subject of an action forappropriate
relief or for damages in a Circuit Court orDistrict
Court of competent jurisdiction.(Emphasis
added.)"When
the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous and expressthe
legislative intent, there is no room for construction or interpretation andthe
statute must be given its effect as written." McCracken
County Fiscal Courtv. Graves, 885 S.W.2d 307, 309
(Ky. 1994) (quoting Lincoln County Fiscal Courtv. Dep't of Public Advocacy, 794
S.W.2d 162, 163 (Ky. 1990)); see also Griffin v.City of Bowling Green, 458
S.W.2d 456, 457 (Ky. 1970). The words ofKRS
527.020(8) are clear and unambiguous. It forbids a public organization,such
as a university, from prohibiting the possession of a firearm in the glove2
The
current version of the statute specifies that it does not apply "to any
personprohibited
from possessing a firearm pursuant to KRS 527.040" (i.e., personsconvicted
of a felony).6compartment
of a vehicle. There can be no other reasonable interpretation ofthe
statutory language.Provided
Mitchell stored his weapon in his vehicle's glove compartment,UK
violated KRS 527.020(8). The statute also provides Mitchell with a cause ofaction
"for appropriate relief or for damages in a Circuit Court or District
Courtof
competent jurisdiction." Mitchell's discharge was therefore contrary toKRS
527.020(8), provided his weapon was in fact stored in the glovecompartment
of his vehicle. Because there is also evidence in the record thatMitchell
stored his weapon in his vehicle's armrest, 3 we now consider theapplicability
of KRS 527.020(4).B. Because Mitchell Had a Valid Concealed Carry
License, HisDischarge Was Contrary to KRS 527.020(4)KRS
237.110 authorizes the issuance of, and establishes standards for,concealed
carry licenses. KRS 237.115 concerns the construction ofKRS
237.110. It states, in relevant part,Except as provided in KRS 527.020, nothingcontained
in KRS 237.110 shall be construed to limit,restrict,
or prohibit in any manner the right of acollege,
university, or any postsecondary educationfacility,
including technical schools and communitycolleges,
to control the possession of deadly weaponson
any property owned or controlled by them . . . .3
Under
the current version of KRS 527.020(8),
a weapon is deemed to not beconcealed
if it is stored in "any enclosed container, compartment, or storage spaceinstalled
as original equipment in a motor vehicle by its manufacturer, including butnot
limited to a glove compartment, center console, or seat pocket . . . ."7KRS
237.115(1) (emphasis added). Thus, universities, including UK, have animplicit
right to control the possession of deadly weapons on property undertheir
control. But this right is qualified by KRS 527.020.KRS
527.020(8), discussed above, applies to persons regardless ofwhether
they hold concealed carry licenses. KRS 527.020(4), by contrast,applies
only to persons, like Mitchell, licensed to carry a concealed deadlyweapon:Persons,
except those specified in subsection (5) of thissection,
licensed to carry a concealed deadly weaponpursuant
to KRS 237.110 may carry a firearm or otherconcealed
deadly weapon on or about their persons atall
times within the Commonwealth of Kentucky, if thefirearm
or concealed deadly weapon is carried inconformity
with the requirements of that section.Unless
otherwise specifically provided by the KentuckyRevised
Statutes or applicable federal law, no criminalpenalty
shall attach to carrying a concealed firearm orother
deadly weapon with a permit at any location atwhich
an unconcealed firearm or other deadly weaponmay
be constitutionally carried. No person ororganization, public or private, shall prohibit aperson licensed to carry a concealed deadlyweapon from possessing a firearm, ammunition, orboth, or other deadly weapon in his or her
vehiclein compliance with the provisions of KRS 237.110and 237.115. Any attempt by a
person ororganization,
public or private, to violate the provisionsof
this subsection may be the subject of an action forappropriate
relief or for damages in a Circuit Court orDistrict
Court of competent jurisdiction.(Emphasis
added.)"Only
if the statute is ambiguous . . . or otherwise frustrates a plainreading,
do we resort to the canons or rules of construction . . . ." King
Drugs,Inc. v. Commonwealth, 250
S.W.3d 643, 645 (Ky. 2008) (citingStephenson v.8Woodward,182 S.W.3d 162 (Ky.
2005)). When the application of two statutesleads
to an apparent conflict, this Court has a duty, to the extent possible, toharmonize
the statutes and give force and effect to each. Spees
v. KentuckyLegal Aid, 274 S.W.3d 447, 450
(Ky. 2009); see also MPM Finaiicial Group, Inc.v. Morton, 289 S.W.3d 193, 198
(Ky. 2009). However, when statutoryprovisions
are in conflict and cannot be harmonized, "our duty is to construethe
statutes so as to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the GeneralAssembly."Johnson
v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 313 S.W.3d 557, 559
(Ky.2010).On
its face, the emphasized portion of KRS 527.020(4) is not ambiguous.It
forbids public and private organizations from imposing any prohibition onpossession
of a deadly weapon in a vehicle, provided that (1) the person sopossessing
is properly licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon, and (2) theperson
is in compliance with KRS 237.110 (which authorizes and regulatesconcealed
carry licenses) and KRS 237.115 (which provides rules ofconstruction
for KRS 237.110).However,
when KRS 527.020(4) is read in conjunction withKRS
237.115(1) and applied to this case, a clear conflict arises.KRS
237.115(1) allows institutions of postsecondary education to controlweapons
on their property, "[e]xcept as provided in KRS 527.020 . . . ."However,
KRS 527.020(4) refers to a person possessing a deadly weapon "in hisor
her vehicle in compliance with the provisions of KRS 237.110 and
237.115."9(emphasis
added). This creates circularity in the two statutes, with eachreferring
back to the other as controlling.To
resolve this conflict, we look to the intent of the General Assembly.First,
KRS 527.020(4), the provision relied upon by Mitchell, applies only tothose
licensed to carry concealed deadly weapons pursuant to KRS 237.110.KRS
237.115, the conflicting statute, provides guidance in the construction ofKRS
237.110. However, KRS 237.110 itself provides a clear rule ofconstruction,
stating that "[t]his section shall be liberally construed to carryout
the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense." KRS 237.110(19).This
clearly expresses the legislature's intent and favors the right to bear armsof
a concealed carry licensee.In
addition, the General Assembly has expressed a strong public policy infavor
of exempting a person's vehicle from restrictions on the possession ofdeadly
weapons. For example, KRS 527.070, the statute that criminalizespossession
of a weapon on primary and secondary school property, 4 specificallyexempts
an adult who possesses a firearm contained in his or her vehicle,provided
the firearm is not removed. KRS 527.070(3)(a). KRS 237.106(1)specifically
forbids any person (including an employer) from prohibiting aperson
from possessing a firearm in his or her vehicle, provided the person islegally
entitled to possess the firearm. See also KRS
237.110(17) (forbidding4
This
statute does not apply to "institutions of postsecondary or higher
education."KRS
527.070(1).10private
employers from prohibiting an employee from keeping a weapon is hisor
her vehicle, provided the employee has a concealed carry license).To
the extent that KRS 527.020(4) and KRS 237.115(1) are in directconflict,
we hold that the conflict must be resolved in favor of KRS 527.020(4).We
base this on. the General Assembly's explicit statement that the concealedcarry
licensing statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the right to beararms,
as well as the legislature's clearly expressed policy of exempting aperson's
vehicle from firearms regulation.This
interpretation best accomplishes the goal of giving effect to thewords
of both statutes. It also best harmonizes the two statutes by protectingthe
right of concealed carry licensees to store weapons anywhere in theirvehicle,
pursuant to KRS 527.020(4), while permitting universities to controlsthe
possession of deadly weapons on all other property,
pursuant toKRS
237.115(1), subject only to the general limitations of KRS 527.020. 65
The
parties have argued at length over what is meant by the use of the term "controlthe
possession of deadly weapons" with respect to universities in KRS
237.115(1),while
the same statute recognizes the right of local governments "to prohibit
thecarrying
of concealed deadly weapons by licensees in that portion of a buildingactually
owned, leased, or occupied by that unit of government." (emphasis added).We
need not exhaustively consider this issue to resolve this case. We note,
however,that
a university has a right to "control" all deadly weapons on all
property it owns orcontrols.
KRS 237.115(1). By contrast, a local government's right to "prohibit"
appliesonly
to concealed deadly weapons, and only in a building. Id. Nothing
in this opinionshould
be construed to limit a postsecondary educational institution's generallyrecognized
right to control the possession of deadly weapons outside of the limitedcircumstances
exempted from control by KRS 527.020.6
In
addition to the exceptions in KRS 527.020(4) and (8), KRS 527.020 authorizes anumber
of other persons to carry concealed deadly weapons under variouscircumstances.
See KRS 527.020(2) (peace officers and certified court securityofficers,
United States mail carriers, and agents and messengers of express companieswhen
necessary for their protection in the discharge of their official duties);11C. Despite Being Part of the Penal Code, KRS
527.020 Authorizes aCivil Cause of ActionAs
explained above, pursuant to KRS 527.020(4) and (8), UK improperlyprohibited
Mitchell from keeping a firearm in his glove compartment (pursuantto
KRS 527.020(8)) or anywhere else in his vehicle (pursuant toKRS
527.020(4), because Mitchell had a concealed carry license). We are notpersuaded
by UK's argument that, because KRS 527.020 is a criminal statute,it
has no applicability to a civil suit for wrongful termination. WhileKRS
527.020 is primarily a criminal statute, which is codified in the penalcode,
KRS 527.020(4) and (8) also specifically contemplate and authorize a civilcause of action. "Any
attempt by a person or organization, public or private, toviolate
the provisions of this subsection may be the subject of an
action forappropriate relief or for damages in
a Circuit Court or District Court ofcompetent
jurisdiction." KRS 527.020(4) & (8) (emphasis added).D. Because Mitchell Was Legally Entitled to
Possess a Firearm in HisVehicle, His Discharge Was Contrary to KRS
237.106Mitchell
also asserts that his discharge was contrary to KRS 237.106. Itprovides,
in relevant part:KRS
527.020(3) (conservation officers of the Department of Fish
and WildlifeResources
and police officers directly employed by state, county, city, or urban-countygovernments
at all times if authorized by their respective departments);KRS
527.020(5) (prosecutor's and active and retired justices and judges in all
placesexcept
detention facilities, provided they hold a valid concealed carry license);KRS
527.020(6) (sheriffs, jailers, deputies, and other corrections employees at all
timesin
all places if expressly authorized and in compliance with training
requirements);KRS
527.020(7) (a full-time paid peace officer or elected sheriff from anotherjurisdiction
at all times in Kentucky provided the other jurisdiction accords Kentuckypeace
officers the same rights by law).12(1)
No person, including but not limited to anemployer,
who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of realproperty
shall prohibit any person who is legallyentitled
to possess a firearm from possessing afirearm,
part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunitioncomponent
in a vehicle on the property.(4)
An employer that fires, disciplines, demotes, orotherwise
punishes an employee who is lawfullyexercising
a right guaranteed by this section and whois
engaging in conduct in compliance with this statuteshall
be liable in civil damages. An employee may seekand
the court shall grant an injunction against anemployer
who is violating the provisions of this sectionwhen
it is found that the employee is in compliancewith
the provisions of this section.(5)
The provisions of this section shall not apply to any real property:(c)
Where a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes specifically prohibits
possession or carrying of firearms on the property.UK
argues that subsection (5)(c) relieves it of liability for terminating
Mitchell,because
KRS 237.115 is "a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes" that"specifically
prohibits possession or carrying of firearms on the property."As
explained above, KRS 237.115, while recognizing the implicit right ofa
university to control weapons on its campus, is limited by KRS 527.020.Because
KRS 527.020(4) and (8) specifically permitted Mitchell to store afirearm
in his vehicle, even while on University property, UK has failed to pointto
"a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes [that] specifically prohibits13possession
or carrying of firearms on the property." KRS 237.106(5)(c).Mitchell's
discharge was therefore contrary to KRS 237.106(4).III. CONCLUSIONMitchell
has established that his discharge was contrary to afundamental
and well-defined public policy, i.e., the right to bear arms, asevidenced
by existing statutory provisions, namely, KRS 237.106,KRS
237.110, and KRS 527.020. See Grzyb, 700 S.W.2d at 401.
Further,Mitchell
has established that an explicit legislative statement, KRS 237.106(4),prohibited
his discharge, and that the reason for his discharge was his exerciseof
a right conferred by well-established legislative enactments inKRS
527.020(4) and (8). See Hill, 327 S.W.3d at 422.
UK was not entitled tojudgment
as a matter of law.For
the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Fayette Circuit Court isreversed.
The case is hereby remanded to that court for proceedings consistentwith
this opinion.Cunningham,
Noble, and Venters, JJ., concur. Scott, J., concurs inresult
only without separate opinion. Abramson, J., concurs in result only byseparate
opinion in which Minton, C.J., joins.ABRAMSON,
J., CONCURRING IN RESULT ONLY: Although I amobliged,
given the current statutes, to concur in the result the majority reachesin
this case—that the University of Kentucky's termination of Mr. Mitchell'semployment
was wrongful if it is established that he kept his gun in his glovecompartment
and not in some other part of his vehicle—I write separately14because
there are significant aspects of the majority's analysis with which Idisagree.
I do not agree that the statutes involved--KRS 237.110, KRS237.115,
and KRS 527.020--are circular or involve conflicts in any waysuggesting
that KRS 237:115 is superseded or invalid. Nor do I agree thataside
from the express exception created by KRS 527.020(8) there is anythingin
the public policy of this Commonwealth that would preclude the Universityfrom
sanctioning a student or an employee who violates its rules regardingguns
on its property.In
their particulars the statutes at issue are somewhat complex, but theoverall
statutory structure is clear enough. KRS 237.110 mandates theissuance
to qualified applicants of a license to carry concealed a deadly weaponand
defines who is a qualified applicant. KRS 527.020(4) then gives substanceto
the license by providing that Iplersons . . . licensed to carry a concealeddeadly
weapon pursuant to KRS 237.110 may carry a firearm or otherconcealed
deadly weapon on or about their persons at all times within theCommonwealth
of Kentucky, if the firearm or concealed deadly weapon iscarried
in conformity with the requirements of that section."The
concealed carry privilege is not unlimited, however. KRS 527.020(4)further
provides that "[n]o person or organization, public or private, shallprohibit
a person licensed to carry a concealed deadly weapon from possessinga
firearm, ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in his or her vehicle incompliance
with the provisions of KRS 237.110 and KRS 237.115." KRS237.115,
of course, is the statute providing that the concealed carry law is not15to
be construed "to limit, restrict, or prohibit in any manner the right of acollege,
university, or any postsecondary education facility, including technicalschools
and community colleges, to control the possession of deadly weaponson
any property owned or controlled by them." Under KRS 527.020(4), then,the
University's right to control deadly weapons on its property remains intacteven
with respect to deadly weapons in a licensed carrier's vehicle.?However,
as the licensed carrier's rights are not absolute, neither are theUniversity's.
For exceptions to the University's right, KRS 237.115 refers backto
KRS 527.020, a statute in which several of the sections identify persons orofficials
whose concealed carry rights enjoy heightened protection. 8 Among7
Much
like KRS 527.020(4), KRS 237.106 provides that no owner, lessee, oroccupant
of real property, including an employer, "shall prohibit any person who islegally
entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of a firearm,ammunition,
or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property." This statuteobviously
conflicts with the University's express right under KRS 237.115 and KRS527.020(4)
to control the presence of firearms in vehicles in its property, and sincethese
latter statutes address the rights of one particular kind of property
owner—postsecondaryschool
educational institutions—whereas KRS 237.106 addresses propertyowners
in general, the more particular statutes should control, and the University'sright
should not be deemed affected by KRS 237.106. Light v. City of
Louisville, 248S.W.3d
559 (Ky. 2008) (applying the rule that a more specific statute controls a moregeneral
one.). The majority's contrary holding disregards this standard rule ofstatutory
construction.8
KRS
237.115 provides that "[e]xcept as provided in KRS 527.020, nothingcontained
in KRS 237.110 shall be construed . . ." The majority understands thereference
to KRS 527.020 to create a circle between the two statutes—KRS 527.020(4)applying
except for KRS 237.115, and KRS 237.115 applying except for KRS527.020(4)—and
then uses the purported circularity as the occasion for its claim thatKRS
237.115 has been superseded by KRS 527.020(4). The statutes, however, whileperhaps
not models of clarity, are not circular. KRS 237.115 does not refer
back toKRS
527.020(4). It refers to KRS 527.020 in its entirety and makes perfect sense ifunderstood
as excepting from KRS 237.115 all those subsections of KRS 527.020which
do not, as KRS 527.020(4) does, incorporate KRS 237.115. Our duty is toconstrue
statutes so as to avoid conflicts, if possible, and to give effect to everyprovision.
Light v. City of Louisville, 248
S.W.3d at 563 (citing City of Bowling Green v.Board of Education of Bowling Green Independent
School District, 443 S.W.2d 243 (Ky.16such
persons are peace officers; certified court security officers; United Statesmail
carriers, KRS 527.020(2); policemen, KRS 527.020(3); Commonwealthattorneys;
county attorneys; judges, both active and retired, KRS 527.020(5);sheriffs
and their deputies; jailers and their deputies; and certain correctionsdepartment
officials and employees, KRS 527.020(6). All of these persons areexcepted
from the University's general right to control deadly weapons on itsproperty.
These exceptions are not surprising, and to this point the statutesseem
to work together smoothly enough.The
rub comes, of course, with KRS 527.020(8). Unlike the precedingsections,
which identify particular persons and officials whose sensitivepositions
can be thought to justify concealed carry rights less restricted thanan
ordinary license holder's, KRS 527.020(8) applies to carriers more generally.At
the time Mr. Mitchell was discharged, it provided that a deadly weapon,including
a firearm, "shall not be deemed concealed on or about the person if itis
located in a glove compartment, regularly installed in a motor vehicle by itsmanufacturer,
regardless of whether said compartment is locked, unlocked, ordoes
not have a locking mechanism." 9 Because under KRS 237.115, auniversity
can control deadly weapons on its property whether concealed ornot,
this portion of the statute, first enacted in 1978, would not affect itsauthority.1969).
The majority instead has created a conflict so as to limit the effect of KRS237.115.9
This
language was revised in 2011 to include any factory-installed enclosedcontainer,
compartment or storage space including a center console or seat pocket.17However,
KRS 527.020(8) continues with the following language added in2002:
"No person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit a personfrom
keeping a firearm or ammunition, or both, or other deadly weapon in aglove
compartment of a vehicle in accordance with the provisions of thissubsection.")
With the amendment, is this subsection now meant to beamong
the KRS 527.020 exceptions to KRS 237.115? That is, notwithstandingits
general authority to control, deadly weapons on its property, andnotwithstanding
its express authority under KRS 527.020(4) to control deadlyweapons
in a licensed carrier's vehicle, are we to understand that theUniversity
is now powerless to keep its students and employees from stashingloaded
guns in the unlocked glove compartments of their unlocked vehicles,not
only powerless but actually subject to student lawsuits if it seeks to rid itsparking
lots of that hazard? That result strikes me, as I am sure it will strikemany
parents, as an affront to common sense. It is certainly a radicaldeparture
from the long practice in this Commonwealth of allowing universitiesand
other institutions of post-secondary education to decide for themselveshow
best to safeguard their students. Centre College v.
Trzop, 127 S.W.3d 56210
The
University maintains that since KRS 527.020 is a penal statute thisprovision
should be understood as forbidding only the criminalization or
quasicriminalizationof
glove-compartment carrying, not the sort of workplace regulation atissue.
It notes that it did not require Mr. Mitchell to park on University property
andso
did not, in a strict sense of the term, "prohibit" him from carrying
his gun.Although
I agree with the University that the Penal Code is an odd place to findstatutes
purporting to compel employers and property owners to tolerate unwantedguns
in
their parking lots, that clearly is what KRS 527.020(4) and KRS 527.020(8)purport
to do. The University has provided no authority for its suggestion that penalstatutes
cannot include such non-penal objects.18(Ky.
2004) (citing Kentucky Military Inst. v. Bramblet, 158 Ky. 205, 164 S.W.808
(1914)).I
am constrained, nevertheless, given this Court's duty to uphold theplainly
expressed intent of the General Assembly, to agree with the majoritythat
it is the result the statutory language requires. As the majority notes,when
the General Assembly meant to exempt universities and colleges andother
post-secondary schools from the similar vehicle provisions of KRS527.020(4)
it did so expressly. The unavoidable implication is that had itmeant
to exempt the University from the glove compartment rule of KRS527.020(8)
it would again have made the exemption express by referencingKRS
237.115. Very reluctantly, therefore, I concur in the majority's result butonly
because a different statutory analysis compels that same result. If onremand
it is determined that Mr. Mitchell's gun was stored in his vehicle'sglove
compartment, then his termination for having breached the University'ssafety
code was wrongful under KRS 527.020(8).Minton,
C.J., joins.19COUNSEL
FOR APPELLANT:Christopher
Derek HuntP.O.
Box 23129Lexington,
KY 40523-3129COUNSEL
FOR APPELLEES:Barbara
Ann KrizBaker,
Kriz, Jenkins, Prewitt & Jones, PSCPNC
Bank Plaza200
West Vine Street, Suite 710Lexington,
KY 40507-1620COUNSEL
FOR AMICI CURIAE COUNCIL OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION,EASTERN
KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY, KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY,MOREHEAD
STATE UNIVERSITY, MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHERNKENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE, AND WESTERNKENTUCKY
UNIVERSITY:Gregory
N. StiversKerrick,
Stivers, & Coyle, PLC1025
State StreetP.O.
Box 9547Bowling
Green, KY 42102-9547COUNSEL
FOR AMICUS CURIAE THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION:Leslie
B. Goff SandersWebb
Sanders PLLC2784
Highway 31WWhite
House, TN 37188COUNSEL
FOR AMICUS CURIAE KENTUCKY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION:Wesley
Reed ButlerBarnett
Benvenuti & Butler PLLC489
E. Main St., Suite 300Lexington,
KY 40507-154120

This chapter deals mostly with victimless crimes involving firearms. They have, for the most part, been enacted to prevent what one might do with a firearm in his possession rather than any actual perpetration of otherwise criminal activity. You should pay close attention to the wording in the chapter, some crimes described seem rather vague and open to very loose interpretation. The entire chapter is relevant but you should be especially wary of the crimes described in the following sections:

This chapter is devoted to the definitions of justifiable force and deadly force. Anyone who carries a weapon for self-defense would benefit from a detailed study of this chapter, paying close attention to the differences between the following sections: